ACQIS v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:20-cv-00295-JRG (E.D. Tex.); ACQIS LLC v. Acer Incorporated, No. 2:21-cv-00275 (E.D. Tex.); ACQIS LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00385 (W.D. Tex.): Represented patent holder ACQIS LLC in reaching confidential settlements against Samsung, Acer, and Microsoft in December 2021, August 2022, and June 2023, respectively. ACQIS alleged infringement of patents covering high-speed serial interfaces integral to communication between integrated circuits used in smartphones, tablets, and laptops. Robins Kaplan reached a confidential settlement with Samsung following a successful mediation while the parties were awaiting summary judgment rulings. The settlement was also preceded by Robins Kaplan winning non-institution of 10 inter partes reviews petitioned for by Samsung before the PTAB. Robins Kaplan reached a confidential settlement with Acer in August of 2022 during summary judgment briefing, and with Microsoft in June 2023 during claim construction briefing.

Corel Software v. Microsoft, No. 2:15-cv-00528 (D. Utah): Logan and his colleagues represent patent holder Corel Software in an ongoing suit against Microsoft for alleged infringement of a patent entitled “Real Time Preview.” Corel alleges willful infringement based on Microsoft’s use of its Live Preview function in many Microsoft Office products.

Willow Techs., LLC v. Johnson Controls Tech. Co., Nos. IPR2023-00022, -00085, ‑00170, -00217, -00257, -00346, -00347: In January of 2023, Logan served on the Robins Kaplan team that helped Johnson Controls International (JCI)—a leading manufacturer of HVAC systems, building management systems and controls, industrial refrigeration systems, and fire and security solutions—reach a confidential settlement against competitor Willow Technologies in a patent infringement dispute. JCI’s patent claims cover dynamic digital twin computing technologies for building management systems. JCI asserted seven patents against Willow’s WillowTwin software platform. JCI engaged Robins Kaplan to defend its asserted patents when Willow challenged them in inter partes review before the PTAB. The parties reached a settlement after submission of the first two Patent Owner Preliminary Responses.

Greenthread, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00147-JRG (E.D. Tex.): Represented Greenthread, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., in patent infringement litigation venued in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved Greenthread’s assertion of four patents relating to the use of graded dopants in semiconductor devices, including DRAM, NAND flash, and image sensor chips, to improve device function and production yield. In July of 2020, the case resolved favorably on confidential terms during expert discovery approximately 14 months from initiation of the litigation.

Steady State Imaging, LLC v. General Electric Co., Civ. No. 17-1048 (JRT/KMM) (D. Minn.): In April of 2019, Logan and his colleagues obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of client General Electric Co., in a breach-of-contract dispute involving development, commercialization, and licensing of a third-party MRI technique.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 3:14-cv-01012-SI (N.D. Cal.): Represented Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) against LG Electronics, Inc., et al., in patent infringement litigation venued in the Northern District of California.  The case involved AMD’s assertion of nine patents relating to integrated circuit power and thermal management, computer memory architecture, graphics processing (GPU) technology, and graphical user interfaces for consumer electronics devices.  LG asserted four counterclaim patents in related technological areas.  After approximately two years of active litigation, the parties resolved the matter through mediation after claim construction.  

Power Management Solutions v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00426(D. Del): Represented Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in defensive patent litigation against Power Management Solutions in the District of Delaware.  The asserted patent involved technology for gating power applied to integrated circuits, including microprocessors and graphics processors.  Following claim construction, the plaintiff agreed to a final judgment of non-infringement, and the plaintiff appealed the claim construction to the Federal Circuit.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of non-infringement, without opinion, within a week of the appellate oral argument.

Omniplanar, Inc. v. Tohken Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:11-cv-05671 (JHR/AMD) (D.N.J.): Represented Omniplanar, Inc., a subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., against Tohken Co., Ltd. in a contractual dispute venued in the District of New Jersey.  The dispute centered around royalty payments for the use of Omniplanar’s barcode-scanning software.  The parties settled the matter before significant discovery was necessary. 

Silicon Graphics, Inc./Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00611 (BBC) (W.D. Wisc.): Represented Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) against Silicon Graphics, Inc. in patent infringement litigation venued in the Western District of Wisconsin.  The case involved patents relating to graphics processing technology.  On appeal, after AMD sustained two-thirds of its non-infringement victory, the case was remanded by the Federal Circuit on issues relating to five claims of one remaining patent-in-suit.  The parties resolved the case shortly before trial. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 3:08-cv-00986-SI (N.D. Cal.): Represented Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in patent infringement litigation venued in the Northern District of California.  The case involved AMD’s assertion of seven patents relating to semiconductor fabrication technology, memory and microprocessor design and architecture, and graphical user interfaces for consumer electronics devices.  Samsung asserted six counterclaim patents in related technological areas.  After nearly three years of litigation and two rounds of mediation, the parties resolved the matter shortly before trial, at the close of expert discovery and summary judgment briefing.  

Mr. Drew is a former Chair of Pro Bono at the firm and has focused his community service and pro bono efforts on helping asylum applicants and victims of human trafficking (through coordination with the Advocates for Human Rights), and children in foster care (through the Children’s Law Center of Minnesota).